Allowable Bearing Capacity of Shallow Foundations Based on Shear Wave Velocity

Semih S. Tezcan, Ali Keceli, and Zuhal Ozdemir

Revised 23 !" 2!!#

ALLOWABLE BEARING CAPACITY OF SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS BASED ON SHEAR WAVE VELOCITY

Semih S. Tezcan 1, Ali Keceli 2, Zuhal Ozdemir 3

ABSTRACT
Firstly$ the historical bac%ground is presented for the deter&ination of ulti&ate bearing capacity of shallow foundations' (he principles of plastic e)uilibriu& used in the classical for&ulation of the ulti&ate bearing capacity are reviewed$ followed by a discussion about the sources of appro*i&ations inherent in the classical theory' Secondly$ based on a variety of case histories of site investigations$ including e*tensive bore hole data$ laboratory testing and geophysical prospecting$ an e&pirical for&ulation is proposed for the deter&ination of allowable bearing capacity of shallow foundations' (he proposed e*pression corroborates consistently with the results of the classical theory and is proven to be reliable and safe$ also fro& the view point of &a*i&u& allowable settle&ents' +t consists of only two soil para&eters$ na&ely$ the insitu &easured shear wave velocity$ and the unit weight' (he unit weight &ay be also deter&ined with sufficient accuracy$ by &eans of another e&pirical e*pression$ using the ,-wave velocity' +t is indicated that once the shear and ,-wave velocities are &easured insitu by an appropriate geophysical survey$ the allowable bearing capacity is deter&ined reliably through a single step operation' Such an approach$ is considerably cost and ti&e-saving$ in practice'

Key words : bearing capacity, shear wa e, !"undati"n design, shall"w !""tings, all"wable bearing pressure

1. Introduction
The ultimate bearing capacity of a particular soil, under a shallow footing, was investigated theoretically by Prandtl (1921) #$% and Reissner (192 ) #&% using the concept of plastic e!uilibrium as early as in 1921" The formulation however is slightly modified, generalised, and updated later by Ter#aghi (192$) #12%, %eyerhof (19$&) #'%, 'ansen (19&() #3%, )e *eer (19+,) #2%, and -ieffert et al" (2,,,) #(% " The historical bearing capacity formulation, as will be discussed briefly in the ne.t -ection, is still widely used in geotechnical engineering practice" 'owever, there are various uncertainities in representing the real insitu soil conditions by means of a few laboratory
1

,rofessor of Civil .ngineering$ Boga/ici 0niversity$ Bebe%$ +stanbul$ (ur%ey ,hone1 23!' 242' 352 "5 536 Fa*1 23!' 242' 352 "5 576 8obile1 23!' 532' 92! 27 47 : tezokan @ superonline. com ; ,rofessor of <eophysics$ +stanbul 0niversity$ Beya/it$ +stanbul$ (ur%ey Research .ngineer$ =igher .ducation Research Foundation$ +stanbul$ (ur%ey

4
var www apps conversion t&p scratch># 245247394'doc !3 !3 2!!#

Allowable Bearing Capacity of Shallow Foundations Based on Shear Wave Velocity

Semih S. Tezcan, Ali Keceli, and Zuhal Ozdemir

tested shear strength parameters" The basic soil parameters are cu 0 cohesion, undrained shear strength and ) 0 angle of internal friction, which can only be determined by laboratory testing of undisturbed soil samples" 1t is sometimes impossible to ta2e undisturbed soil samples especially in sandy and gravelly soils" The insitu measured shear wave velocity, s , however as a single field inde. represents the real soil conditions, much more effectively and reliably than the laboratory tested shear strength parameters" 1n addition to geophysical refraction seismic survey, there are several other techni!ues of measuring the shear wave velocity at the site as discussed by -to2oe et al" (19+2) #11%, Te#can et al" (19+$) #1'%. *ecause, the insitu measured shear wave velocity, s , reflects the true photograph of the soil, containing the contributions of the void ratio, effective confining stresses, stress history, shear and compressive strengths, geologic age etc" 3s will be seen later in this study, the shear wave velocity, s , enables the practicing engineer to determine the allowable bearing capacity, *a , in a most convenient, reliable and straight forward manner"

. C!"##ic"! $or%u!"tion
4sing the principles of plastic e!uilibrium, the ultimate bearing capacity, *! , of a shallow strip footing, with a depth of +, from the surface and with a width of , and length -, . /igure 10 , is given by Ter#aghi (19&+) #13% as , qf = c Nc sc + D Nq + 0.5 B N s where, a) ,earing capacity !act"rs1 2* 3 e4p . tan )0 tan2 .'$5 6 ) 720 2c 3 .2* 8 10 c"t ) 2 3 1.9 .2* 810 tan ) by =ansen ?43"7@ #3% or 2 3 .2* 8 10 tan .1.' )0 "by 8eyerhof ?435"@ [4] b) Shape !act"rs: sc 3 1 6 5.25 , 7 - 55555555555"55555" .) 0 conditions) sc 3 [1 6 5.25 , 7 -] [1 6 5.3 .+ 7 ,05.2$ ] 5"" .) = 5 c"nditi"ns, saturated clays0 s 3 1 8 5.2 ., 7 -0 555555555" ., 7 - 3 !""ting width t" length rati"0 s 3 5.& 555555555555555555555 .circular !""ting0 1t is customary to ta2e , 7 - 3 5 for a strip footing, and , 7 - 3 1 for a s!uare footing" The formulation is applicable to ;shall"w< foundations in which the depth + , is not greater than the breadth ," The foundation shape factor e.pression of sc given above for saturated clays under undrained conditions, where 3 5, is generated using the 2c curves supplied by -2empton (19$1) #9%" 1f the soil is 6wea27, or in other words is not fairly dense or stiff, i"e" +r 8 ,"/$ , 2&5 8 ( , cu 8 1,, 2Pa , or s 8 2,, m9sec, the reduced shear strength parameters cr and r are used in =*.1, instead of the laboratory determined c and , as follows #13% : cr 3 5.&( c (2a) tan r 3 5.&( tan (2b) (1)

2
var www apps conversion t&p scratch># 245247394'doc !3 !3 2!!#

Allowable Bearing Capacity of Shallow Foundations Based on Shear Wave Velocity

Semih S. Tezcan, Ali Keceli, and Zuhal Ozdemir

&. Sourc'# o$ "((ro)i%"tion# in c!"##ic"! "((ro"c*

The appro.imations involved in the derivation and use of the ultimate bearing capacity, *! , given by =*.1, may be summari#ed as follows:
a@ (he soil &ass is assu&ed to be purely ho&ogeneous and isotropic$ while the soil in nature is e*tre&ely heteregenous and ti*otropic$ further the classical theory is developed only for a planar case$ while all footings are 3- di&ensional in real behaviour' b@ (he first ter& of Eq.1 represents the shear strength$ the second ter& is the contribution of the surcharge pressure due to the depth of foundation$ and the third ter& represents the contribution of the self-weight' +t is only an appro*i&ation to superi&pose the contributions of various load cases in an entirely nonlinear plastic stress-strain environ&ent' c@ (he contribution of self-weight can be deter&ined only appro*i&ately$ by nu&erical or graphical &eans$ for which no e*act for&ulation is available'

d@ (he shear strength of soil within a depth D $ fro& the surface is neglected'
e@ Aepending on the degree of$ co&pressibility of the soil$ there &ay be three types of failure &odes6 (i) general shear$ (ii) local shear$ and (iii) unching shear$ as shown in !igure 1' (he theoretical considerations behind Eq.1$ correspond only to the general shear mode$ which is typical for soils of low co&pressibility$ such as dense sands and stiff clays' +n the local shear "ailure$ only a partial state of plastic e)uilibriu& is developed with significant co&pression under the footing' +n the unching shear mode, however$ direct planar shear failures occur only along the vertical directions around the edges of the footing' (herefore$ Eq.1 is no longer applicable for soils of high co&pressibility$ such as loose sand and soft clay$ which &ay undergo$ either (ii) #he local shear or (iii) #he unching shear failures' Conse)uently$ the results of Eq.1 will only be appro*i&ate for such soils' +n reality$ the e*cessive settle&ent and not the shear failure is nor&ally the li&iting criterion in high co&pressibility soils'

f) (he ulti&ate bearing capacity calculations are very sensitive to the values of shear strength

para&eters c $ and $ which are deter&ined in the laboratory using BundisturbedC soil sa&ples$ which &ay not necessarily represent the true conditions prevailing at the site' 0nrealistically$ high bearing capacity is calculated especially$ if the shear strength para&eter$ $ is inappropriately deter&ined to be on the high side in the laboratory' All soil para&eters including the real values of internal angle of friction$ water content$ void ratio$ confining pressure$ presence of boulders or cavities$ etc are not necessarily the sa&e in the soil sa&ples'

g@ Custo&arily$ after a due geotechnical survey$ a single value of allowable bearing capacity qa $
is assigned in practice$ to a particular construction site' =owever$ &inor variations in si/es$ shapes and depths of different foundations at a particular site are overloo%ed$ and the sa&e qa value is used in foundation design$ through- out the construction site'

h@ A factor of safety of 3 is used nor&ally$ in order to obtain the allowable bearing capacity$ qa $
which contains a significant a&ount of reserve strength in it$ accounting for all the inaccuracies and appro*i&ations cited herein' (his significantly large factor of safety represents the degree of uncertainties and our BignoranceC in deter&ining the real soil conditions' i@ Dast$ but not the least$ although so&e )uantitative guidance is available as contained in Sec#ion $$ there is )uite a bit of intuition in deter&ining whether the soil is on the %s#rong& or the %'ea(& side$ for the purpose of using reduced )#'o #hirds* shear strength para&eters$ in accordance with Eq $'

3
var www apps conversion t&p scratch># 245247394'doc !3 !3 2!!#

Allowable Bearing Capacity of Shallow Foundations Based on Shear Wave Velocity

Semih S. Tezcan, Ali Keceli, and Zuhal Ozdemir

+. Pr"ctic"! r'co%%'nd"tion#
*ased on the practical e.periences of the writers, the ranges of allowable bearing capacities for different categories of cohesive and granular soils are summari#ed in Table 1" ;or comparisons as well as for !uic2 reference purposes, the values of -PT counts 2&5 , shear strength parameters cu , and , relative density +r , and also the shear wave velocity s , for each soil category are also given in Table 1" The ranges of allowable bearing pressures *a , are tested to be in conformity with the empirical recommendations of the >,?8@( .1@@(0 #1&% , the Tur2ish <arth!ua2e =ode T=?81@@9 #1$% , and the ,S 955' (19(&) #1%"

,. U#' o$ #*'"r -".' .'!ocit/

a ) For control of settlements *ased on numerous case studies, as discussed in the subse!uent -ections, the allowable bearing capacity, *a , under a shallow foundation in units of ABa, may be obtained from the following empirical e.pressions: qa = 0.024 vs qa = 2.4 !0 "4 ) vs (/a) (/b)

where, 0 unit weight .A27m30, 0 mass density .Ag7m30, and s 0 shear wave velocity .m7sec0" -ince, a proper foundation design must satisfy not only an assured degree of safety against possible shear failures of the supporting soil, but also the settlements, and in particular the differential settlements, should not e.ceed the tolerable limits as given by -2empton et al" (19$&) #15% " 'ence, the coefficient of the empirical formula in =*. 3 is so selected to be on the low side, that no settlement problem will necessarily be encountered in relatively soft soil conditions" This point has been rigorously tested and verified for all soft 6wea27 soil conditions e.isting in the case histories given Table 2" 3lthough, the empirical e.pressions of =*. 3, are proposed by the writers, on the basis of e.tensive geotechnical and geophysical soil investigations at 1 different sites, they should be used with caution" ;or relatively important buildings, and especially until a stage when the validity of these simple empirical e.pressions are amply tested and calibrated over a sufficient period of time, the allowable bearing pressure should be determined also by means of conventional methods using Ter#aghi7s soil parameters" The proposed empirical e.pressions are for estimating the allowable bearing pressure only" The settlement calculations however, should be conducted, especially for soft soil conditions and for important structures, using either the elastic theory #15% , or the -2empton> *?errum method #@% " *ecause, settlements sometime may be the dominating factor" # ) For sett$n% an &''er ce$l$n% for qa 1n order to set a practical upper ceiling for the allowable bearing capacity, *a , especially for the roc2y formations the empirical e.pression given in =*. 3, is ad?usted to yield gradually reduced values through a factor s , for shear wave velocities greater than $55 m7sec, as follows:
#
var www apps conversion t&p scratch># 245247394'doc !3 !3 2!!#

Allowable Bearing Capacity of Shallow Foundations Based on Shear Wave Velocity

Semih S. Tezcan, Ali Keceli, and Zuhal Ozdemir

qa = 0.024 vs sv ( 35.& sv = ! ) * + !0 ", vs" 500 ) !.,

( ) ($)

The variation of allowable bearing capacity *a , with shear wave velocity s , is illustrated in /igure 2, where the reduction factor s , sets an asymptotic upper limit of *a 0 35.& for shear wave velocities s C 2 555 m7sec. c 0 For calc&lat$n% &n$t we$%-ts There is a direct relationship between the average unit weight , and the P>wave velocity of a soil layer" *ased on e.tensive case histories of laboratory testing, a convenient empirical relationship in this regard, is proposed by the writers as follows:

' = o + 0.002 v'

where, p 0 the unit weight in A27m3 based on P>wave velocity, and " 0 the reference unit weight values given as follows:
o + 1, o + 1. o + 10 o + $1
"or loose sand-, sil#- and cla-e- soils "or dense sand and gra/el "or muds#one, limes#one, cla-s#one, conglomera#e, e#c. "or sands#one, #u"", gra-'ac(e, schis#, e#c.
p

(&) 0 P>wave velocity in m7sec,

3s seen in /igure 3, the unit weights calculated by the empirical e.pression given in =*.&, are in e.cellent agreement with those determined in the laboratory" 1n the absence of any bore hole sampling and laboratory testing of soil samples, the above empirical e.pression provides a reliable first appro.imation for the unit weights of various soils, once the insitu measured P>wave velocities are available" 1n fact, the speedy evaluation of unit weights, prior to any soil sampling, enables the practicing engineer to calculate the allowable bearing capacity *a , readily from =*. 3"

1. C"#' *i#tori'#
a ) F$eld $nvest$%at$ons 1n order to establish a sound and reliable relationship between the allowable bearing capacity *a , and the shear wave velocity s , a series of case histories have been studied as summari#ed in Table 2" ;or each case, in>depth geotechnical and geophysical site investigations have been conducted and a comprehensive set of insitu and laboratory tested soil parameters have been determined" %ost of the basic soil parameters, for each typical soil layer, are shown in /igures ' through /igure &. 1f however, for any particular soil parameter in any typical soil layer, multiple values were available, from various bore hole and seismic survey measurements, only the average of these multiple values have been indicated"

# ) .llowa#le #ear$n% ca'ac$t$es #y t-e class$cal t-eory

5
var www apps conversion t&p scratch># 245247394'doc !3 !3 2!!#

Allowable Bearing Capacity of Shallow Foundations Based on Shear Wave Velocity

Semih S. Tezcan, Ali Keceli, and Zuhal Ozdemir

The first column in these ;igures contain the insitu measured -PT data, 235, the laboratory tested values of cu 0 undrained shear strength .ABa0 , < 0 effective internal angle of friction, n 0 unit weight .A27m30, and also the *! 0 ultimate bearing capacities .ABa0, and *a 0 allowable bearing capacities .ABa0 calculated using the classical approach of =*. 1" 1f, a particular soil layer is considered to be ;weaA< in accordance with Ter#aghi7s (19&+) #13% recommendations, two thirds of shear strength parameters have been utili#ed in the bearing pressure capacity calculations, as given in =*. 2" c ) .llowa#le #ear$n% ca'ac$ty #y vs The second column contains, the insitu measured s and p> velocities .m7sec0, 0 Poisson ratio, p 0 unit weights .A27m30 determined on the basis of P>wave velocities given in =*. &, *a 0 allowable bearing capacities .ABa0 based on shear wave velocities, in accordance with =*. 3" 1n all case histories, the shear wave velocity, s , and the P>wave velocity, p , have been measured insitu by means of seismic refraction method, using low level e.plosives" The propagating waves have been recorded by means of a 12>channel Smart Seis De"metrics instrument, which is capable of producing very high resolution of signal7n"ise ratio, due to its instant analogue and9or digital signal analyses and automatic filtering process" 1n practice, the geophysical e.plorations are not daily business in foundation engineering, therefore, there is a necessity for e.perienced technical staff for such a purpose" The shear wave velocities may be measured, through impact energy methods, during the bore hole drilling, or using the cross>hole techni!ue #11% , #1'%" Reali#ing that, the bearing capacity is correlated with large strains at failure, while the shear wave velocity is associated with 6#ero strain7 levels, the proposed empirical e.pressions are ad?usted effectively in order to accommodate the differences in strain levels" ;or each case history, the allowable bearing capacities obtained by the classical theory have been compared in /igure (, with those determined by =*. 3, using the shear wave velocities" 1t is seen that there is a very good agreement between these two different sets of values" The allowable bearing capacities *a , based on the shear wave velocities are more uniform in distribution, e.hibiting no erratic variation and further, they provide an inherent factor of safety against shear failure and intolerable settlements" The empirical allowable bearing pressure e.pression given in =*. 3, ensures for all foreseeable soft soil conditions, including those of the case studies that, the ma.imum allowable settlement is not e.ceeded"

2. Conc!u#ion#
a) The determination of ade!uately safe allowable bearing capacity of a soil layer under a shallow foundation is a problem of vital importance in geotechnical engineering" The classical approach is not only costly and time consuming due to e.tensive insitu and laboratory testing re!uired, but also involves significant appro.imations and intuitive ?udgements" )espite the 6e.act7 nature of the classical theory, a huge factor safety, on the order of /,, percent, is recommended in order to account for the une.pected inaccuracies and our 6ignorance7 of the real soil conditions" b) The proposed empirical shear wave velocity approach however, is surprisingly cost effective, and time saving" The insitu measured shear wave velocity, v s, as an indispensable single field inde., is capable of representing the real soil conditions at the site, including the true influence of a family of soil parameters li2e water content, confining pressure, relative
"
var www apps conversion t&p scratch># 245247394'doc !3 !3 2!!#

Allowable Bearing Capacity of Shallow Foundations Based on Shear Wave Velocity

Semih S. Tezcan, Ali Keceli, and Zuhal Ozdemir

density, void ratio, nonuniformity, discontinuity, nonhomogeneity, shear and compressive strength, etc" The complications and misrepresentations associated with soil sampling, sample disturbance, accurate simulations in the laboratory testing, etc" are all avoided" -hear wave velocity measurement at a site however, calls for additional cost and e.pert geophysical personnel" c) The depth, width and length of a foundation plays a significant role especially in granular soils, in the derivation of mathematical formulation when following the classical approach" 1n cohesive soils, the geometry of foundation does not play a significant role anyhow" @evertheless in classical theory, the soil is ideali#ed into an isotropic, homogeneous and uniform elasto>plastic planar geometrical medium" 1n the shear wave velocity approach however, there is absolutely no need to consider the foundation si#e and depth, even in granular soils, since the influence of all these parameters are inherently incorporated in the insitu measured s A values" The classical approach is further handicapped by the layered conditions" 1n shear wave velocity approach however, the bearing capacity of a single layer, immediately under the foundation, is directly determined, as a one step operation" d) The empirical formulations proposed for calculating both the allowable bearing capacity *a , and the unit weight , are proven to be safe and reliable as verified consistently by 1 different laboratory tested case histories" The validity and reliability of the proposed scheme will be better established however, as the proposed empirical method is constantly calibrated by conventional method at more and more sites"

3. Ac4no-!'d5%'nt#
The authors gratefully ac2nowledge the assistance and cooperation e.tended by %r" Tufan )urgunoglu, and %r" 3bdullah =alisir of the Beotechnics =o", 1stanbul, who conducted the geotechnical and geophysical soil investigations of all the case studies discussed herein" -incere than2s are also due to Professor Csman 4yani2, of -uleyman )emirel 4niversity, 1sparta, for his invaluable criticisms and corrections of the manuscript"

6. R'$'r'nc'#
718. 7 8. 7&8. 7+8. 7,8. *ritish -tandard (,, (19(&)" ?"de "! Bractice !"r /"undati"ns, *ritish -tandards 1nstitution, Dondon" )e*eer, <"<" (19+,)" E=4perimental determinati"n "! the shape !act"rs and the bearing capacity !act"rs "! sandF, Beotechni!ue, Gol" 2,, pp" /(+> 11" 'ansen, H"*" (19&()" EA re ised e4tended !"rmula !"r bearing capacity F, )anish Beotechnical 1nstitute *ulletin, @o" 2(" %eyerhof, B"B" (19$&)" E Benetrati"n tests and bearing capacity "! c"hesi"nless s"ilsF, Proceedings 3-=<, Gol" (2, @o" -%1, Paper (&&, pp" 1>19" Prandtl, D" (1921)" EEber die =indringungs!estigAeit .F2rte0 plastischer ,aust"!!e und die /estigAeit "n SchneidenG .On the penetrating strengths .hardness0 "! plastic c"nstructi"n materials and the strength "! cutting edges0, Ieit" 3ngew" %ath" %ech", 1, @o"1, pp"1$>2,"

9
var www apps conversion t&p scratch># 245247394'doc !3 !3 2!!#

Allowable Bearing Capacity of Shallow Foundations Based on Shear Wave Velocity

Semih S. Tezcan, Ali Keceli, and Zuhal Ozdemir

718. 728.

Reissner, '" (192 )" EZum =rddrucApr"blemG .?"ncerning the earth8pressure pr"blem0, Proc" 1st 1nt" =ongress of 3pplied %echanics, )elft, pp" 29$>/11" -ieffert, H"B", and =h" *ay>Bress (2,,,)" E?"mparis"n "! the =ur"pean bearing capacity calculati"n meth"ds !"r shall"w !"undati"nsF, Beotechnical <ngineering, 1nstitution of =ivil <ngineers, Gol" 1 /, pp" &$>+ " -2empton, 3" J" (19$1)" EThe bearing capacity "! clays<< , Br"ceedings, ,uilding Hesearch ?"ngress, 1, 1(,>9" -2empton, 3" J" and *?errum, D" (19$+)" E A c"ntributi"n t" the settlement analysis "! !"undati"n "n clayF, Beotechni!ue, Gol" +, pp" 1&(>1+(" -2empton, 3" J" and %ac)onald, )" '" (19$&)" All"wable settlement "! buildings, Br"ceedings I?=, $, Part /, pp" +2+>&(" -to2oe, K" '", and Joods, R" )" (19+2)" E Insitu Shear Ja e Kel"city by ?r"ss8F"le Leth"dF, Hournal of the -oil %echanics and ;oundation )ivison, 3-=<, Gol" 9(, @o" -%$, pp" /> &," Ter#aghi, K" (192$)" EStructure and "lume "! "ids "! s"ils F, Pages 1,, 11, 12, and part of 1/ of =rdbaumechaniA au! ,"denphysiAalisher Drundlage, translated by 3" =asagrande in /r"m the"ry t" practice in s"il mechanics, @ew Lor2, Hohn Jiley and -ons, 19&,, pp" 1 &>1 (" Ter#aghi, K", and Pec2, R" *" (19&+)" E S"il Lechanics in =ngineering Bractice F, 2nd edn, Hohn Jiley and -ons, @ew Lor2" Te#can, -" -", <rden, -" %", and )urgunoMlu, '" T" (19+$)" EInsitu Leasurement "! Shear Ja e Kel"city at ,"MaziNi >ni ersity ?ampus F, Proceedings of 1nternational =onference on -oil %echanics and ;oundation <ngineering, Gol" 2, 3pril 19+$, pp" 1$+>1& , 1stanbul Technical 4niversity, 3ya#aMa, 1stanbul, Tur2ey" Tur2ish <arth!ua2e =ode (T<=), (199()" 8 www" 2oeri"boun"edu"tr N" 4niform *uilding =ode (4*=), (199+)" 1nternational =onference of *uilding Cfficials, $/&, Jor2man %ill Road Jhittier, =alifornia, 4-3"

738. 768. 7198. 7118.

71 8.

71&8. 71+8.

71,8. 7118.

7
var www apps conversion t&p scratch># 245247394'doc !3 !3 2!!#

Allowable Bearing Capacity of Shallow Foundations Based on Shear Wave Velocity

Semih S. Tezcan, Ali Keceli, and Zuhal Ozdemir

/igure 1. O F"i!ur' %'c*"ni#%# und'r " #tri( $ootin5

3
var www apps conversion t&p scratch># 245247394'doc !3 !3 2!!#

Allowable Bearing Capacity of Shallow Foundations Based on Shear Wave Velocity

Semih S. Tezcan, Ali Keceli, and Zuhal Ozdemir

--

/igure 2. O A!!o-":!' :'"rin5 c"("cit/ o$ #oi!# :"#'d on vs

4!
var www apps conversion t&p scratch># 245247394'doc !3 !3 2!!#

Allowable Bearing Capacity of Shallow Foundations Based on Shear Wave Velocity

Semih S. Tezcan, Ali Keceli, and Zuhal Ozdemir

/igure 3. O Unit -'i5*t# :"#'d on .( ; .'!ociti'#

44
var www apps conversion t&p scratch># 245247394'doc !3 !3 2!!#

Allowable Bearing Capacity of Shallow Foundations Based on Shear Wave Velocity

Semih S. Tezcan, Ali Keceli, and Zuhal Ozdemir

/igure '.8 A!!o-":!' :'"rin5 c"("citi'# $or c"#' *i#tori'# No.1 t*rou5* No.+ (4nits areO g 0 2@9m/, c 0 2@9m2, !a 0 2@9m2, vs , vp 0 m9sec)

42
var www apps conversion t&p scratch># 245247394'doc !3 !3 2!!#

Allowable Bearing Capacity of Shallow Foundations Based on Shear Wave Velocity

Semih S. Tezcan, Ali Keceli, and Zuhal Ozdemir

/igure $.8 A!!o-":!' :'"rin5 c"("citi'# $or c"#' *i#tori'# No.,< 1< 2< "nd 6 (4nits areO g 0 2@9m/, c 0 2@9m2, !a 0 2@9m2, vs , vp 0 m9sec)

43
var www apps conversion t&p scratch># 245247394'doc !3 !3 2!!#

Allowable Bearing Capacity of Shallow Foundations Based on Shear Wave Velocity

Semih S. Tezcan, Ali Keceli, and Zuhal Ozdemir

/igure &.8 A!!o-":!' :'"rin5 c"("citi'# $or c"#' *i#tori'# No.19 t*rou5* No.1+ (4nits areO g 0 2@9m/, c 0 2@9m2, !a 0 2@9m2, vs , vp 0 m9sec)

4#
var www apps conversion t&p scratch># 245247394'doc !3 !3 2!!#

Allowable Bearing Capacity of Shallow Foundations Based on Shear Wave Velocity

Semih S. Tezcan, Ali Keceli, and Zuhal Ozdemir

/igure (. O Co%("ri#on# o$ "!!o-":!' :'"rin5 c"("citi'# (@umerals beside the data points are the case study numbers)

45
var www apps conversion t&p scratch># 245247394'doc !3 !3 2!!#

Allowable Bearing Capacity of Shallow Foundations Based on Shear Wave Velocity

Semih S. Tezcan, Ali Keceli, and Zuhal Ozdemir

Table 1.8 R'co%%'nd'd r"n5'# o$ "!!o-":!' :'"rin5 c"("citi'# =4P"0

4"
var www apps conversion t&p scratch># 245247394'doc !3 !3 2!!#

No
Allowable Bearing Capacity of Shallow Foundations Based on Shear Wave Velocity
Semih S. Tezcan, Ali Keceli, and Zuhal Ozdemir

Table 2.8 Loc"tion# "nd t*' #co(' o$ in.'#ti5"tion# $or '"c* c"#' #tud/
Nu%:'r o$ :or' *o!'# "nd ".'r"5' d'(t*

No Bui!din5 Id'ntit/

Footin5 D'(t* Nu%:'r O$ D #ur.'/# m ",, 2"$, /",, /",, 2"$, 2"$, 2"$, 1",, 1"$, 2"$, 1"$, +",, 2"$, ",, a 2 / 1 1 / / / / / / / / / 2 2 / / / / b 2 / / / / 2 /

A!!o-":!' :'"rin5 c"("cit/< >" in ABa

2umber 1 2 / 3tatPr2 Primary -chool *uilding *abaes2i, KQr2lareli , Jestern Tur2ey Residential 3partments LeRilSay =ooperative, Tay, 3fyon Ie2i Urne2, 'ousing comple., BV2tPr2 Gillage, <yPp, 1stanbul C#tas 3partments, ;lorya Wenli2, *a2Qr2oy, 1stanbul $ & + ( 9 Cil tan2Q(X) , 'aramidere, 1stanbul Cil tan2s, -amsun, *lac2 -ea Cil tan2s, %udanya, *ursa Cil tan2s, Tubu2lu, 1stanbul Cil tan2s, 1s2enderun / $ ( + + & 2 2

m 1$"/, 9"$,

.c0 2(1 11, 1$, 1 & 1&$ 21$ 1,, 11$ $2, 1(+ 11, 222 2/1 12,

.d0 32 1+2 9& 11+ 11& + 1&& 199 &2+ 13 31 9, &+ 1 +

2 2 / &

2,",, 2,",, (",, 2$",, 2,"+ 12",, $"$, 2&"1, 21",, 21",, 19"2, 12",,

1, Cil tan2s, %ersin 11 Cil tan2s, )erince , Kocaeli 12 Cil tan2s, )erince, Kocaeli 1/ Cil tan2s, 3liaMa, 1#mir 1 -uleyman )emirel 4niversity, 1sparta, -outhern Tur2ey
a) seismic refraction surveys, c) the classical Ter#aghi approach (=*. 1),
(X)

#) geophysical soil layers, d) the shear wave velocity approach (=*. 3)"

Cil tan2s belong to the Tur2ish Petroleum Cffice =o", 3n2ara, Tur2ey

49
var www apps conversion t&p scratch># 245247394'doc !3 !3 2!!#